masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Forum:Voting Reform
Because there have been quite a few issues with this in the past, a number of forums, and other places, I feel this is needed. The voting section of various places, mentioned above, is not for leaving comments, it is for leaving a vote, nothing more or less. If you want to leave a comment, then do it in the discussion section, because that is what that section is actually for. The talk page discussion clarification is needed because they are currently all over the map. Because of the multiuse feature of talk pages, the amount of headlines for the setup that is seen in the purpose built forums clutters the TOC and can cause formatting issues if an edit conflict or someone not using the "new topic" button. If passed, the linked page above will be moved to the Community Guidelines and the link will be modified. And for purposes of clarification, there is no "Abstain", it is "Neutral". Voting Support #Lancer1289 (talk) 17:50, April 4, 2013 (UTC) #-- Commdor (Talk) 17:52, April 4, 2013 (UTC) #Daniel Kelly (talk) 05:54, April 5, 2013 (UTC) #--Legionwrex (talk) 05:59, April 5, 2013 (UTC) #4Ferelden (talk) 06:28, April 5, 2013 (UTC) #Trandra (talk) 23:51, April 5, 2013 (UTC) Neutral # TheUnknown285 (talk) 14:50, April 5, 2013 (UTC) Against #SpartHawg948 (talk) 00:28, April 6, 2013 (UTC) #Garhdo (talk) 02:22, April 8, 2013 (UTC) #These notes can be helpful. Phalanx (talk| ) 11:24, April 8, 2013 (UTC) #--DeldiRe 17:55, April 4, 2013 (UTC) # Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 12:43, April 8, 2013 (UTC) # After thinking it over, changing my vote. Avg Man (talk) 20:18, April 8, 2013 (UTC) # see reason belowMidnightpiranha (talk) 21:24, April 8, 2013 (UTC) # I like to give a reason when I vote. Cattlesquat (talk) 15:03, April 9, 2013 (UTC) # A person's reasoning over an issue is more valuable than a lot of the 'player notes' currently permitted on the wiki. Phylarion (talk) 15:13, April 9, 2013 (UTC) Discussion Support, if you want to take the time to do it (and if it is done in a civil maneer and not with a coercitive/rude/insulting/flaming/... comment) --DeldiRe 17:54, April 4, 2013 (UTC) :Just to be sure that I was clear, I hope that this policy will not allow policy enforcer to create animosity or frustration against new editors who want to participate in a debate but who do not know the policy by earth. A simple reminder will be sufficient for a small issue like this one.--DeldiRe 21:32, April 4, 2013 (UTC) I think I'm going to vote neutral on this for now. I kind of wonder if this is really such a big deal (can you give me an example of someone writing like a paragraph with their vote?). That said, I'm not ready to cast a "no" vote yet. Also, in this vote, Commdor, DeldiRe, and LegionWrex include hyphens with their votes. First, does that mean something that I am unaware of. Second, what would the policy be regarding those? On another note: Lancer, I would suggest amending your rule at least to allow the proposer of the rule to be noted ("As proposer").TheUnknown285 (talk) 14:50, April 5, 2013 (UTC) ::The hyphens are part of our signatures. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:42, April 5, 2013 (UTC) :Support the amendment. Even if the proposer is stated on the top of the page, it can be a good reminder for the clarity.--DeldiRe 14:57, April 5, 2013 (UTC) ::Oppose, as one of the main practitioners of signing statements. And I oppose exempting "as proposer". It's obvious who is proposing something, and it's obvious that the person proposing it is going to vote for it. If no other comments are allowed, why is "as proposer" different? If this passes, I personally don't intend to treat "as proposer" as different from any other comment. SpartHawg948 (talk) 00:30, April 6, 2013 (UTC) :::I honestly never considered this much of an issue. It just seemed to be how things were done. Garhdo (talk) 00:33, April 6, 2013 (UTC) I have changed my vote as after watching a lot of votes change in the End Policy forum. a lot of the notes there are simply quick points that explain a reason for a particular vote, especially one that has been changed, without having to make unneccessary comments in the discussion thread which clog it up. The Voting section is still easily legible and the counts can be easily made, even with the notes. Garhdo (talk) 02:22, April 8, 2013 (UTC) :So long as people use the # and ~~~~ I see no problem. There is no need for a rule banning notes. However, I do feel that users should be free to format it correctly if another user used, for example, *. Phalanx (talk| ) 11:27, April 8, 2013 (UTC) Due to my first concerns (see my previous comments) and the arguments against this new policy, I'm changing my vote. But I'm in favor of an obligation of # and ~ ~ ~ and a limitation of the tolerated comments.--DeldiRe 12:13, April 8, 2013 (UTC) :I don't see what this would accomplish. It seems to me that often, the short comments placed in the voting area are mere convenience and would be too short and casual to have a meaningful role in any discussion taking place in the discussion section. Tali's no.1 fan (talk) 12:48, April 8, 2013 (UTC) I am largely disagreeing for the ability to quickly summarize why I think a vote should/should not pass and what amendments would change my mind and then being able to post them in plain view (if short enough) or point out to where they may be found. In general most people do not write massive statements in the voting section anyway. Lead by example that voting is done by writing "#(sig)" and most people will follow anyway without needing to make a rule over it. Midnightpiranha (talk) 21:29, April 8, 2013 (UTC) :The brief reasons people give in the voting section are actually very useful to see where everybody stands. Not everybody wants to argue the main issues of every proposal, but we do want to weigh in. Cattlesquat (talk) 20:05, April 9, 2013 (UTC)